2009.07.22

The biggest drop . . . ever.Drunk driving deaths are plunging across the country.In 2007 there were 13,041 persons killed in alcohol-related crashes on our nation’s highways.Last year there were 11,773, a stunning drop of 9.7%.Total fatal crashes were down by the same percentage.These raw numbers for total crashes have not been seen since the 1920’s, and for alcohol-related not since NHTSA began keeping track in the mid 1970’s.So what is going on?

First, the bad news.The most telling of these statistical trends are the equal rates of drop comparing total to alcohol-related fatal crashes.This means there was no great law change, enforcement effort, or dramatic change in drunk driving behaviors.Another compelling statistic is the fact that total vehicle crashes (fatal, non-fatal, alcohol and non-alcohol) fell by only 3.5%.Again, the question is begged, “What is going on?”

Historically, from year to year, the United States on average sees a 1% increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled and an addition ½% increase in the number of vehicles (reflecting the growth rate of the US).This means that if nothing else changed one should see an increase of 1&½% in all of these figures each year.But 2008 was radically different, vehicle miles driven dropped a huge 3.4%.There were two reasons for this drop.The first was a springtime march in gasoline prices to above $4, the second was the economic freefall that occurred in the Fall.You will notice the number of miles driven almost matched the drop in total crashes (3.4% versus 3.5%.

Now the good news.From the statistics mentioned above, you would expect a similar drop in fatality rates; but the drop was almost three times the expected rate.

For the third time, the question is begged, “What is going on?”

In a nutshell, if you have a relatively static number of crashes and a large drop in fatalities, the lack of fatal injuries in those crashes means that the vehicles are much safer in a crash.Why?Seat belt usage, preponderance of multiple airbags within vehicles, reinforced vehicle compartments, etc., all play a huge role in vehicle occupants not getting their last ride in a hearse.A two vehicle crash that would have killed both drivers in 1972, would probably result in walk-aways if redone in 2008 vehicles.

Within the alcohol-related fatalities there was good news too.Five smaller states actually saw increases in their numbers in 2008, but they were more than offset by huge decreases (20%+) in alcohol related fatalities in states that mandate ignition interlocks for all drunk drivers.

2009.05.21

California, a state which prides itself on leading the nation in cutting edge legislation, is setting a somewhat slower pace when it comes to advancing ignition interlock usage. California has proposed a bill (AB 91) which would create a five year pilot program in four California counties to see what the effects of having first time offenders use interlock devices would do to highway safety.

New Mexico has required all first-timers to use the device for four years, with sustained double digit decreases in alcohol-related fatalities the result.

California, with a population of almost 37 million, has only slightly more than 3,000 offenders on interlocks now. Maryland, a much smaller state, with 16% of the population of California, has more than that.

Study after study shows that interlocks can reduce recidivism by up to 65%.

So why is California taking a more cautious approach when it comes to ignition interlock legislation? It's anyone's guess at this point, but there are a number of people in California pointing to the high rate of injuries and deaths related to drunk driving and asking why these valuable public safety devices are not being mandated in many more cases.

But we're confident that the California Assembly will pass sound ignition interlock legislation in the very near future to help keep the roads and highways of the state safer.

2009.03.27

The paint is not dry on Ohio’s repeat offender law, but the Ohio General Assembly is now looking at requiring ignition interlocks for limited driving privileges for first offenders. While it will be September before the first repeat offenders will get interlocks because of the 2008 law (these offenders are serving their 1 year “hard-time” i.e. period of no driving privileges), the Ohio House of Representatives is considering House Bill 78 as you read this. In addition to the interlock requirement for these first time offenders, HB 78 ups the ante by requiring a continuous alcohol monitoring bracelet for those who try to get around the interlock.

In 2008 and 2009 Ohio did a 180 degree turn on ignition interlocks. For many years Ohio was the sleepy backwater on this issue, having, in spite of Ohio’s population, less than a thousand offenders using the device within a few jurisdictions. But then, as is all too often is the case, tragedy changed that. On December 30, 2007 a drunk driver with a BAC of .254, driving the wrong way on I-280 near Toledo, crashed into a minivan carrying eight persons from two families from Michigan and Maryland . . . leaving 5 persons dead and several critically injured. Responding to huge nationwide media coverage and outrage from their constituents, the Ohio General Assembly responded by resuscitating a 2007 OVI bill (SB 17) that languished during that session and moved it quickly to the Governor’s desk. Ohio’s Governor wasted no time in signing the bill giving Ohio, for the first time, a statewide interlock program for repeat offenders.

With House Bill 78, Ohio is now casting in its lot on the issue of first time OVI offenders—joining many other states in this new focus of ignition interlock usage. But unlike repeat offender interlock legislation, first time offender proposals come with powerful, well-heeled opponents. Hopefully it won’t take another tragedy to get this bill to the Governor’s desk.

Interlocks for first offenders? Primarily because of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, seventeen states have introduced legislation this year requiring that very thing. While ignition interlocks being required for repeat drunk drivers attracts no open opposition, requiring it for first offenders is a different story.

Legislation taking this stance has had a much harder row to hoe. So far three states have been successful in passing the requirement of first timers installing the device, while five more have increased incentives in participating (or punishment in not participating) in voluntary programs. This compares to twenty one states requiring it for repeat offenders and twenty five more encouraging through incentives to install. Clearly a big difference.

Leading the charge against these first offender laws is a trade association known as the American Beverage Institute. This group is made up of some of the largest restaurant chains in America. ABI’s argument basically boils down to: persons caught driving at just above the legal limit should not be punished with an ignition interlock. This is in spite of the evidence that three fifths of the drunk drivers who kill someone in their crashes have no prior DUI/DWI’s before the crash.

Among opponents and the general public alike there also is a persistent belief that first time offenders are simply “making a mistake”. Unfortunately data from states that require alcohol assessments for all offenders show that among first time offenders almost half are already problem drinkers or full blow alcoholics. While the “making a mistake” belief was probably true a generation ago, public education efforts led by MADD and other groups have greatly reduced the number of “social drinkers” who “make the mistake” and are arrested.

As surprising at it is to some, first time offenders are being targeted for GOOD reason.

2009.03.11

Wyoming is famous for rodeo and when a rodeo cowboy falls off his horse he gets back on. Interlock proponents in Wyoming did the same thing this week. Smarting from a stinging defeat of an omnibus DUI statute rewrite last week, the Wyoming legislature approved Senate File 88, a high BAC bill that would require offenders with BAC over .15 to have the interlock for a minimum of one year for first offenders to life for fourth offenders. After some minor differences are ironed out between the version that passed the House and the original Senate version the bill will go to the Governor’s desk for signature.

Wisconsin did a little wrangling of their own, bringing the first of several interlock bills up in committee. Wisconsin’s legislature is a little different that most, as they usually bring up a bill for committee testimony on one day and then the committee votes on the bill on another day. True to form, the Assembly Public Safety Committee did not vote on Assembly Bill 17 but they did take testimony for almost three hours. This legislation requires interlocks for both repeat offenders and for high BAC first offenders.

Better late than never, Arkansas added their name to the roll of states with active interlock bills. House Bill 1799 and House Bill 1640 both require mandatory interlocks for all offenders and lessens the minimum suspension period without an interlock to 45 days. They were introduced this week and sent to the House Judiciary Committee.

In a case of perfect timing, the ignition interlock issue gained a poster child and even more legislative impetus with the interlock-required sentencing of one of the legendary figures in the NBA, former Phoenix Suns center and television commentator Charles Barkley. It seems Mr. Barkley was clairvoyant in his pleadings from a few years back . . . “I am not a role model.”. Let’s hope Sir Charles high profile can have a positive effect on legislators and potential drunk driving offenders alike.

2009.02.19

40 interlock bills in 22 states. 2009 is on tap (no pun intended) to be the busiest year for interlock legislation . . . ever. Alabama grabbed the spotlight this week with undoubtedly the most comprehensive piece of ignition interlock legislation to be introduced in any state. Senate Bill 277 sponsored by Senator Quinton Ross Jr. (D-Montgomery), requires interlocks as a condition of bail for repeat offenders, requires interlocks upon conviction for 1 year for 1st offenders, 2 years for 2nd offenders, 3 years for 3rd offenders and 5 years for 4th offenders—if the offender fails the breath test and is below a .15 BAC. If the offender had a BAC of .15 or above, or refused to take the breath test, these interlock timeframes are doubled. Offenders who do not own vehicles are not off free and clear either. Senate Bill 277 requires them to pay the state the equivalent of the cost of an interlock for the appropriate interlock period mentioned above. This money is then used to pay for drunk driving prevention media campaigns.

The southern states seemed to be where the activity was centered as Alabama’s move was followed by Texas moving their mandatory 1st offender interlock into committee (Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Senator Rodney Ellis [D-Houston]) and Virginia passing their mandatory 1st offender bill (House Bill 2041 sponsored by Delegate Sal Iaquinto [R- Virginia Beach]) out of the House of Delegates and over to the Senate.

Virginia’s action puts them in company with Wyoming as legislatures that only one month into their 2009 sessions have move interlock legislation out of the house of origin and into the other legislative chamber. Lightning speed by any definition of deliberative government entity velocity.

Will this rush to move legislation continue? No one knows for sure, but the very quantity of legislation introduced confirms that interlocks are a hot issue under the domes from Honolulu to Hartford.

2009.02.05

Not quiet on the Western Front. . . nor the Eastern, Northern or Southern.After two years of unprecedented attention to ignition interlocks, legislatures across the country are still busy introducing legislation to create or improve ignition interlock programs in their states.As of 2/04/09, 14 states have put forth interlock proposals since their legislatures convened (5 states have yet to start their 2009 sessions) and at least 6 more should follow in the next few weeks.

The content of these bills run the gamut—from initial creation of an interlock program (Mississippi)—to expanding current interlock programs to include all first offenders (Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Virginia).Also hot are proposals to snare high blood alcohol concentration (.15) first offenders into interlock requirements (Georgia, Wisconsin and Wyoming).At the same time many of the states mentioned are also modifying their repeat offender programs to be mandatory rather than discretionary.

What does all of this mean?Well, due to efforts by traffic safety organizations, especially Mothers Against Drunk Driving, ignition interlocks are being recognized by legislatures for what they are . . .safe, effective, relatively low cost measures that prevent rather than respond to subsequent drunk driving offenses.

New Mexico’s experience with mandatory interlocks and the double digit percentage drops in alcohol-related traffic fatalities that followed are being replicated from

Atlantic to Pacific. In 2008, 22 states introduced interlock legislation, with 12 of the proposals being passed into statute.In 2007, 13 states introduced interlock bills, with 8 of those being signed by their prospective Governors.

Ignition interlocks are clearly the fashion in legislative traffic safety efforts.A trend with no end in sight.

2009.02.04

A number of studies have been conducted that measure the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices. One area of focus in these studies has been on the impact on repeat offenses. One study pointed to a 64% reduction in the rate of repeat offense after the use of an ignition interlock device.

These breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIID), such as the Intoxalock have proven to be strong behavior modification tools. When a driver is able to relate his or her breath alcohol level (BrAC) to the amount consumed they can draw a concise correlation between what and how much they drank to the impact on their blood (and hence breath alcohol) levels. Most people who consume alcohol have little or no idea how much they can drink before reaching prescribed limits for drinking and driving. Also, when when a BAIID user repeatedly introduces .000 BrAC values into the devices, it serves as positive reinforcement that they are doing the right thing and it helps them better understand that they cannot consume alcohol and expect to drive a vehicle legally.

Our experience shows that many users have made dramatic shifts in their behavior as a result of using a BAIID. We receive feedback regularly from our customers on the positive impact the Intoxalock® has had on their lives.